J Baird Callicott’s central criticism against animal liberationists (AL) is that the ethic is individualistic and limited to the concern of animal suffering; this ethic does not consider the morality of preserving the ecosystem. An AL argues that the interests of animals should be considered because they experience pain and suffering. They argue that the ethics of equality should be applied to other animals; all beings capable of suffering are worthy of equal consideration. Intelligence, value to a system, population size, or the destructive nature of the animal has no bearing in this consideration. Callicott comments that an AL viewpoint is as one sided as anthropocentrism; and they fail to grasp the moral implications to ecology. Ecology
…show more content…
I believe granting animals equal rights would be disastrous to the environment, and negate the greatest good for all. Humans have a responsibility to our environment from both a responsibility to all things that live in it, as well as from a self-preservation standpoint. Decisions regarding moral responsibility reign beyond the rights of each individual unit in the ecosystem, with consideration to the greatest good for all. However, totally acknowledgement of Calicott’s premise is difficult as a unit within the ecosystem. Considering that as a human unit, I could be endorsing the culling of humans in support of a balanced system, I tend to lean with an anthropocentric view on Calicott’s ecocentric view. Calicott view of ecosystem balance might include culling via game hunting as appropriate human behavior because of over population of deer. I can logically understand this practice, but morally I remain conflicted with this idea. However, hypocritically I have no problem eating a hamburger or chicken sandwich. Therefore my objections are rooted in an ideal that animals in nature deserve a different level of respect than those that are raised for food. These are the situations that bring rise to ethics, the discussion of ethics,
I believe granting animals equal rights would be disastrous to the environment, and negate the greatest good for all. Humans have a responsibility to our environment from both a responsibility to all things that live in it, as well as from a self-preservation standpoint. Decisions regarding moral responsibility reign beyond the rights of each individual unit in the ecosystem, with consideration to the greatest good for all. However, totally acknowledgement of Calicott’s premise is difficult as a unit within the ecosystem. Considering that as a human unit, I could be endorsing the culling of humans in support of a balanced system, I tend to lean with an anthropocentric view on Calicott’s ecocentric view. Calicott view of ecosystem balance might include culling via game hunting as appropriate human behavior because of over population of deer. I can logically understand this practice, but morally I remain conflicted with this idea. However, hypocritically I have no problem eating a hamburger or chicken sandwich. Therefore my objections are rooted in an ideal that animals in nature deserve a different level of respect than those that are raised for food. These are the situations that bring rise to ethics, the discussion of ethics,